Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Mysteries revisited: the McMinnville UFO photographs


Recommended Posts

It's just a lid from the cabbage pickling barrel. The wind lifted a lid into the air.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The pictures are sharp so they cant be real UFO pictures.

Edited by NCC1701
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, no. Ain't buying it. I like the skeptic claim here, wing mirror - or something like that. nothing in those photos shows "exotic", non human design. 

And no need to suspend the wing mirror from fishing line, they just throw the object in the air and take a pic. easy peasy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of the first photos out there at the beginning of the modern UFO era. I grew up in the '50s and read a lot of material over the years which included this story and photo. It's a classic. You may not know that a photo was taken in France that looked exactly like the McMinnville photo around the same time. Was it the real thing? It was taken by film and never proven to be staged or faked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil1684 said:

This was one of the first photos out there at the beginning of the modern UFO era. I grew up in the '50s and read a lot of material over the years which included this story and photo. It's a classic. You may not know that a photo was taken in France that looked exactly like the McMinnville photo around the same time. Was it the real thing? It was taken by film and never proven to be staged or faked.

Oh, the photo can be 100% real but what's IN the photo may not at all be what they claim it is. 
I never saw a UFO like that, with the protrusion on the top of that "craft"... never saw anything like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the few sightings that The Condon Report considered legitimate and unexplainable by any conventional means. It was given very rigid scientific analysis with very exacting parameters, and it passed muster.

The Condon Report (explorescu.org)

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 4:33 PM, Phil1684 said:

You may not know that a photo was taken in France that looked exactly like the McMinnville photo around the same time

And um where is this french picture of a truck door rear view mirror? Oops sorry picture of a real flying saucer.

You ever notice that these antique crap pics all fit with junk of the era?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pie pan with a piece of cardboard taped on it.  Thrown like a Frizbee and photo snapped.  Easy Peasy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article cropped off the top of the photo which shows the overhead wire that the model was hanging from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its weird, any of us here could go hang a pie tin with fishing line take a fuzzy pic and it look better that this yet this just has to be the beam ship from zeta 7

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 9:08 PM, Hammerclaw said:

This is one of the few sightings that The Condon Report considered legitimate and unexplainable by any conventional means. It was given very rigid scientific analysis with very exacting parameters, and it passed muster.

The Condon Report (explorescu.org)

The report does not say that and in two places it says the opposite. The first:

"These tests do not rule out the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread. Given the foregoing analysis, one must choose between an asymmetric model suspended from the overhead wire, and an extraordinary flying object (See Table 1)."

The report then attempts to rule out a small object using false assumptions, like "it is the shadowed surface in particular that looks pale and hence suggests large distance." All they're really saying is that it looks like it's far away to them.

After unloading lots of photometeric data that doesn't prove anything, it nevertheless concludes that the photo is most likely a distant flying object even though its own data doesn't conclude that at all. What's their excuse? Well, a flying saucer is the "simplest" explanation and a hoax is a more complicated explanation. It really makes this ridiculous claim:

"While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended model."

I'll put my money on a model suspended from the overhead wire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

The report does not say that and in two places it says the opposite. The first:

"These tests do not rule out the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread. Given the foregoing analysis, one must choose between an asymmetric model suspended from the overhead wire, and an extraordinary flying object (See Table 1)."

The report then attempts to rule out a small object using false assumptions, like "it is the shadowed surface in particular that looks pale and hence suggests large distance." All they're really saying is that it looks like it's far away to them.

After unloading lots of photometeric data that doesn't prove anything, it nevertheless concludes that the photo is most likely a distant flying object even though its own data doesn't conclude that at all. What's their excuse? Well, a flying saucer is the "simplest" explanation and a hoax is a more complicated explanation. It really makes this ridiculous claim:

"While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended model."

I'll put my money on a model suspended from the overhead wire.

It's one of the reports where they didn't rule out authenticity and damn! They really wanted to! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's one of the reports where they didn't rule out authenticity and damn! They really wanted to! 

It's exactly the opposite. Their bias of wanting it to be an "extraordinary flying object" is obvious from the beginning. They went through pointless measurements of the photographs that proved nothing and then made the groundless and naive statement that a flying saucer is "simpler" than a hoax. Their basis for that is that it's not what they would expect a hoax would look like without providing a single explanation of what they would expect a hoax to look like.

Like I said, I would bet on a model hung from a fishing line mainly because I have hung models from fishing lines and the investigators never had. It's so simple that even a child could fake this photo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

It's exactly the opposite. Their bias of wanting it to be an "extraordinary flying object" is obvious from the beginning. They went through pointless measurements of the photographs that proved nothing and then made the groundless and naive statement that a flying saucer is "simpler" than a hoax. Their basis for that is that it's not what they would expect a hoax would look like without providing a single explanation of what they would expect a hoax to look like.

Like I said, I would bet on a model hung from a fishing line mainly because I have hung models from fishing lines and the investigators never had. It's so simple that even a child could fake this photo.

They did an objective analysis and determined it was more likely a real object at a distance than anything else. They made no determination as to what the object actually was. The most innocuous speculative explanation would be that of a piece of airborne debris. The Condon Report was done under the auspices of the Unite States Air Force by The University of Colorado, not some amateur UFO group of the tImes, such as NICAP or APRO, who, themselves, rejected the report as biased. The idea that science professionals would have missed considering such obvious explanations as you propose is patently ludicrous.

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 10:33 PM, Phil1684 said:

 You may not know that a photo was taken in France that looked exactly like the McMinnville photo around the same time.

Even in the 50s all car manufacturers sold their cars worldwide and thats the reason why the wheel caps in both images look the same.

Quote

 It was taken by film and never proven to be staged or faked.

Thats not a proof that it wasnt staged/faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

They did an objective analysis and determined it was more likely a real object at a distance than anything else.

Feel free to quote the parts that say this because it's beginning to sound like you haven't read a single word in it.  All I found were statements that said it could very well have been a model hanging from the overhead lines. Naturally I included both of these quotes in my post. All evidence in the report that suggested that it wasn't a model have the qualifiers "appears", "seems", and "suggests" indicating that nothing could be concluded from it. That's why they had no choice but to go back to the possibility that the object is a suspended model.

17 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 The idea that science professionals would have missed considering such obvious explanations as you propose is patently ludicrous.

I agree completely, and they didn't. That's why they said twice that it could have been a suspended model, and in the conclusion the report says, "It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication..." See? The only reason they felt it was an "extraordinary flying object" was because the thought that was "simpler" than the explanation of a hoax. They never explained why an unknown object that is defying all laws of flight and nature is "simpler" than hanging a model from an overhead line. The obvious explanation is that they wanted it to be an "extraordinary flying object" and not a simple hoax.

Yes, even science professionals have been fooled by hoaxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, astrobeing said:

Feel free to quote the parts that say this because it's beginning to sound like you haven't read a single word in it.  All I found were statements that said it could very well have been a model hanging from the overhead lines. Naturally I included both of these quotes in my post. All evidence in the report that suggested that it wasn't a model have the qualifiers "appears", "seems", and "suggests" indicating that nothing could be concluded from it. That's why they had no choice but to go back to the possibility that the object is a suspended model.

I agree completely, and they didn't. That's why they said twice that it could have been a suspended model, and in the conclusion the report says, "It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication..." See? The only reason they felt it was an "extraordinary flying object" was because the thought that was "simpler" than the explanation of a hoax. They never explained why an unknown object that is defying all laws of flight and nature is "simpler" than hanging a model from an overhead line. The obvious explanation is that they wanted it to be an "extraordinary flying object" and not a simple hoax.

Yes, even science professionals have been fooled by hoaxes.

Have you read The Condon Report? It's an objective analysis of reports, not the phenomena, itself, as reports are the only thing to investigate, as there was and is an apparent dearth of objective, substantial or material evidence. They're not wanting anything, except to not insert their own feelings and opinions on the topic as you and I are doing. It looks fake on the face of it, to me, too. They present an objective analysis and let the readers decide for themselves, as good scientific method does on a questionable topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Have you read The Condon Report? It's an objective analysis of reports, not the phenomena, itself, as reports are the only thing to investigate, as there was and is an apparent dearth of objective, substantial or material evidence. They're not wanting anything, except to not insert their own feelings and opinions on the topic as you and I are doing. It looks fake on the face of it, to me, too. They present an objective analysis and let the readers decide for themselves, as good scientific method does on a questionable topic.

??? What the hell do you think I was quoting? I read it over thirty years ago. While most of the science and logic in it is very good, the McMinnville UFO case is a jarring exception in it. For example, they attempted to use atmospheric scattering to determine the distance to the object. One problem: you can't do this if you don't know what the object looks like. They didn't care because they wanted the object to be far away therefore large therefore they decided the gray bottom meant it was far away. They did admit that the calculations would be incorrect if the bottom of the object was very reflective but gosh don't let a shiny aluminum pie tin make you think it's not a real flying saucer!

Every time they presented evidence that it's a distant object they had to admit that their evidence could be wrong, yet they still concluded that it was most likely an "extraordinary flying object" defying the laws of physics and "the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread" was more complicated than that! More complicated than defying the laws of physics?

I recommend that you read it sometime.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

??? What the hell do you think I was quoting? I read it over thirty years ago. While most of the science and logic in it is very good, the McMinnville UFO case is a jarring exception in it. For example, they attempted to use atmospheric scattering to determine the distance to the object. One problem: you can't do this if you don't know what the object looks like. They didn't care because they wanted the object to be far away therefore large therefore they decided the gray bottom meant it was far away. They did admit that the calculations would be incorrect if the bottom of the object was very reflective but gosh don't let a shiny aluminum pie tin make you think it's not a real flying saucer!

Every time they presented evidence that it's a distant object they had to admit that their evidence could be wrong, yet they still concluded that it was most likely an "extraordinary flying object" defying the laws of physics and "the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved thread" was more complicated than that! More complicated than defying the laws of physics?

I recommend that you read it sometime.

I read it in 1969 and several times since. We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

The McMinnville UFO photos are 70 years old - Nexus Newsfeed

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I read it in 1969 and several times since. We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

No, you need to read the section on the McMinnville UFO and tell us why you agree that an "extraordinary flying object" is more probable than a mundane hoax.

At this point I don't think you've ever read it and you've ignored every quote I've posted from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 7:17 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Oh, the photo can be 100% real but what's IN the photo may not at all be what they claim it is. 
I never saw a UFO like that, with the protrusion on the top of that "craft"... never saw anything like that

 

I had to go thru this again.

I looked at that object. You know what it could be..? a headlight. It's that protrusion that has been bugging me. What is it? 
Well, it could be the part of the headlight that plugs in. maybe. I know one thing, I never saw a UFO with that configuration on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

No, you need to read the section on the McMinnville UFO and tell us why you agree that an "extraordinary flying object" is more probable than a mundane hoax.

At this point I don't think you've ever read it and you've ignored every quote I've posted from it.

I have read it several times. I still have the original hard copy in my library. As difficult as it is for you to comprehend, I have a different take on the very same topic and information than do you. The only thing I'm dismissing is your opinions, with which I do not agree. Do have a good day, sir.

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I have read it several times. I still have the original hard copy in my library. As difficult as it is for you to comprehend, I have a different take on the very same topic and information than do you. The only thing I'm dismissing is your opinions, with which I do not agree. Do have a good day, sir.

No, you are dismissing statements that are in the very report that you refuse to read, therefore all of your arguments are from ignorance. That's why at first you incorrectly said that the report concluded the photographs are "unexplainable by any conventional means" then after I posted some quotes from it you then said "they didn't rule out authenticity". I'm sure if you actually read the section of the report on the McMinnville photographs your next conclusion will be even closer to mine.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.